One of the auto alternatives that lost out to oil a century ago: a 1909 Stanley Steamer at the Newport Antique Auto Hill Climb. Photo: Huw Williams/Wikimedia Commons

Change is hard in the world of energy, and nothing shows that more than attempts to change the deep roots of the vehicles Americans drive every day. Almost all the oil we use as a nation goes for transportation, with all the implications that brings in terms of dependence on foreign oil, gas prices that rise and fall on international markets, and global warming. And technologically speaking, we do have alternatives – none of which are catching on fast.

Officially, the Obama administration has set a goal to have 1 million electric cars and plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. In reality, unless we pick up the pace, it’s not going to happen. GM sold fewer than 10,000 of its innovative Volt in the first half of this year, for example.

There are other alternatives to gasoline, too. Natural gas is cheap, cleaner than gasoline, and is already in use as a fuel, particularly for heavy duty vehicles like buses and trucks. But there are still only about 40,000 heavy duty vehicles powered by natural gas in the U.S., out of about 9 million total.

There also were alternatives to oil when the automobile was first invented, more than a century ago. But there’s a reason why we’re not driving around in the descendants of the Stanley Steamer. Oil won out for good reasons: it was the most efficient fuel in terms of cost, the easiest to deliver to consumers, and required the least effort from drivers. Of course, that was before OPEC and catastrophes like the Exxon-Valdez and BP Deepwater Horizon oil spills. And it was before scientists worldwide began making forecasts about global warming.

With its enticing pros and troubling cons, oil may or may not stay on top as a transportation fuel. But if we’re going to reduce our reliance on it, here are two things to watch:

How do much you have to pay up front? Right now electric and natural gas vehicles cost significantly more than conventional vehicles. A Volt costs about $40,000, although there’s a $7,500 federal tax credit to bring that price down. The hope is that higher fuel efficiency means you’ll save money over the long run. But that calculation depends on multiple factors: the cost of the vehicle, the price of gas, and the price of your alternative fuel, not to mention whether buyers are willing pay ahead of time for savings later on.

The biggest part of the cost of an electric car or a plug-in hybrid is the battery. In recent weeks, there have been a number of reports examining what the impact would be if there were a breakthrough in battery technology that made these cars cheaper. Some analyses, like the one contained in the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook, are pretty modest. The EIA estimates a battery breakthrough could boost battery powered vehicles to nearly one-quarter of auto sales by 2035, compared to 8 percent without one. Other assessments are more optimistic.

The situation isn’t much better for all-electric cars, particularly given that it takes much longer to charge a battery than to fill up a gas tank. On the plus side, about half of American households park their car within 20 feet of an electrical outlet, according to the Energy Department. On the other hand, half don’t. The advantage of a plug-in hybrid, of course, is that it also has a gasoline engine for those awkward moments when you don’t remember to plug it in. Even so, there’s a chicken-and-egg issue here. We don’t have the infrastructure for alternative vehicles because there aren’t enough of them on the road, but we can’t put more on the road without the infrastructure.

There’s nothing magical about petroleum. We can change, and there are reasons to do so, especially with the Energy Department predicting that oil prices will nearly double over the next 20 years. But unless we get a lot smarter about how to alter the fundamental dynamics of cost and convenience, most drivers will still opt for filling up rather than plugging in.

Comments

Peter Kelly

Cork Ireland

November 25, 2013, 7:17 pm

I think solar hoods, roofs and trunks even panels area good idea and would cost 30% of the cost of a Toyota Prius Solar Sliding Roof? Solar paint is invented in the US. Could a potassium carbonate CO2 capture system be made that captures CO2 in the trunck to be utilated by fire suppression systems and fire stations. I think it can . Its easy to make a particulate filter and carbon filter in an electrically closing plastic duct to capture PM10, some PM2.5, sulphur oxides, ozone and some volatile organic compounds. An M1 abraham derives power from its radiator. Can this technology be commercialised to improve power/efficiency and reduce heat/emmissions? Smaller safer cars are a good idea. The stats on cubic capacity in europe vis a vis the US make the USA look like its squandering fuel everywhere. Hydrogen is a great idea. CH4 has 30% less CO2 and the East and West US coasts are full of CH4 but it needs to last for the rest of humanity. Its cleaner and far better than Fracking for CH4 1.04 billion years on earth. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis I think and the engine can be mass produced. We can’t gamble the earths future so recklessly. Think about it the Sahara was once full of life and life is a tender balance.

Bob

Plano, TX

July 25, 2012, 5:28 pm

@Paul Antony Razzell

We get hydrogen for fuel cells two ways: 1) byproduct of refining petroleum, and 2) electrolysis of water. In the first method it’s still effectively a fossil fuel. The second method is expensive because water molecules are stable. It takes a great deal of energy to break H2O apart.
Hydrogen has many other problems. It’s a pain to store. It has to be compressed to store any quanitity in a practical space. It leaks readily out of almost any container.
Better batteries would be better.
When the batteries are good enough people will buy them. It will be a no-brainer. Batteries aren’t good enough.